Evidence? Bah.

I’m going back to the well of madness that is the Queen’s English Society. You might remember them for the savaging they received at the hands of Stan Carey, John E. McIntyre, and David Mitchell. A brief summary: they’re a group of misguided pedants insisting that everyone else ought to be as obsessed as they are with minutiae like the specific placement of only. In order to enforce this belief, they propose saddling us with a language academy akin to that employed by the French. And who do they think ought to be that language academy? Why, the QES, of course!

One of the Economist‘s blogs has an interview with the president of the Queen’s English Society, and right off the bat, it pointed out why the QES is thoroughly unqualified to be a language academy.

Their president, Bernard Lamb, is a geneticist who teaches at Imperial College London. He’s an actual scientist, so surely he knows that solid data is necessary before jumping to any conclusions or inciting any panics about the state of society. Surely he has some evidence to support his strongly held belief that English is in dire straits, and that a language academy will fix it. So let’s see his complete response to the question “Has the standard of English really dropped?”:

“It has, yes. Punctuation is down, and spelling standards are down. My students confuse things like “weather” and “whether”, or “their” and “they’re”, which should have been corrected long ago. If I see a correct semicolon, that makes my day! They’re so useful!”

It has, yes. I don’t mean to be needlessly snarky, but a geneticist’s opinion of English doesn’t prove anything. And it doesn’t help matters that his only bit of data is the completely irrelevant anecdotal evidence that his students make spelling errors.

Why is it irrelevant? First, it contains no reference point, so the fact that his students’ English is currently bad is not evidence that the standards have dropped; it might have been just as bad a century ago. Secondly, it’s anecdotal evidence based on a sample of students in a science class. Perhaps the admission standards of his university are slipping, generating a drop in the competence of his students that is completely independent of any trend in society as a whole. Thirdly, if the worst problem you can think of to prove that English is falling apart is a couple of typos, I’m unimpressed.

Let’s reverse the situation. Suppose that instead of a bioscientist telling us about language, it was me, a linguist, talking about medicine. The interviewer asks “Are people healthier now?”, and I respond

“Oh my, yes. Smallpox infections are down. My students take multi-vitamin supplements, which have been shown to be good for your health. If I see someone eat a banana, it makes my day! Potassium is so useful!”

It’d be obvious that I was just blowing smoke, that I held a belief and was just reaching for anything I could come up with to justify it. But, because so many people want to believe that language standards are falling, this sort of non-evidence is seen as compelling.

Let me close by noting that I’m not saying that standards are definitely not falling. I just haven’t seen the evidence for the fall of English. Maybe Lamb has that evidence, and he’s chosen not to present it. (“I have here in my hand a list of 205 grammatical mistakes ruining our language.”) I doubt it. Determining society’s overall grammaticality level at different points in time is an exquisitely difficult and poorly defined task, and I am unaware of any controlled experiments to assess a claim like Lamb’s. Judging by his response to the question, I think he is too.

About The Blog

A lot of people make claims about what "good English" is. Much of what they say is flim-flam, and this blog aims to set the record straight. Its goal is to explain the motivations behind the real grammar of English and to debunk ill-founded claims about what is grammatical and what isn't. Somehow, this was enough to garner a favorable mention in the Wall Street Journal.

About Me

I'm Gabe Doyle, currently a postdoctoral scholar in the Language and Cognition Lab at Stanford University. Before that, I got a doctorate in linguistics from UC San Diego and a bachelor's in math from Princeton.

In my research, I look at how humans manage one of their greatest learning achievements: the acquisition of language. I build computational models of how people can learn language with cognitively-general processes and as few presuppositions as possible. Currently, I'm working on models for acquiring phonology and other constraint-based aspects of cognition.

I also examine how we can use large electronic resources, such as Twitter, to learn about how we speak to each other. Some of my recent work uses Twitter to map dialect regions in the United States.

mike: I agree. I think that there are a couple of stand-ins one could calculate for this measure. One is the overall level of variability in the language — how many ways there are of spelling a word, say. Of course, this couldn’t possibly be what Lamb is thinking of, because modern spelling variability is minuscule compared to that of earlier Englishes. Another could be to look at errors that are honestly regarded as errors by the populace as a whole, and to see how the rate of such errors has changed over time. But this is flawed, too, because we simply don’t have very good data on the grammaticality ratings of historical Englishes. Hell, we don’t even have very good grammaticality ratings for contemporary usage, outside of a range of borderline cases that syntacticians have studied.

I maintain that anyone who believes that standards are slipping probably has little or no experience reading unpublished documents written before 1900. The unedited writing of laypeople in the 1700s or 1800s was at least as bad as—and often far, far worse than—anything you find in student papers nowadays.

It’s possible that standards have slipped in the last few decades, but (if it’s true) I think it’s a result of teachers themselves not knowing how to teach writing. But I still think that, compared to just a century or two ago, standards and standardization have advanced considerably.

This example confirms what we know about argument: logical/formal soundness is important, but the biases that audiences bring to the table are equally important — because the success of an argument ultimately depends on whether or not it actually persuades.

Using this measure, you can enjoy a lot of success simply by affirming what your audience is already predisposed to believe. That’s not an ethical way of winning, but in terms of real-world effect, it’s still winning. Cultures are shaped, laws are changed and policies are enacted as a result of this sort of evidence-free persuasion. We can complain all day about how this constitutes cheating, but that’s like standing on the beach and railing against the pounding surf. This is the reality of the world we live in.

For example, most of us are inclined to accept “decline narratives” like Lamb’s without evidence. Why? Because they’re so well established that the possibility of deconstructing them doesn’t even occur to us anymore. Our values are declining, we’re becoming more selfish, the younger generation is less literate, etc. … good lord, these narratives of generational decline are as old as the concept of generations. And let’s face it: they’re appealing. They provide a simplified way to look at the world, and they make us look good (or at least better than the younger folks). Why *wouldn’t* we want to believe them?

I’m willing to bet that Lamb isn’t too concerned about his lack of evidence. A large swath of the population will never ask for it. And he’s already convinced himself. Unless the rest of us find a way to cut through the public’s predispositions, he’s already won.

Every one of Lamb’s examples (except “criteria”) deal with spelling, not grammar. If someone writes “complimentary” for “complementary”, it’s not because they don’t understand the difference, it’s because they just spelled the word wrong.

Since everyone else is slapping poor Mr. Lamb around I will try to defend him a little. I should first recognize that the point of Gabe’s post is entirely accurate. I am used to seeing such sloppy reasoning from my freshmen students, but a geneticist who holds himself up as an expert should know better than to cite examples as proof of trends. He is engaging in what I would call the kids-these-days form of rationalizing a decline in civilization.

Even if people should not use faulty logic from linguists or others without proper medical training when making decisions about their health, they often do. This is why we have acupuncturists “practicing” medicine at hospitals and parents refusing to immunize their children. Idiocy is not just a language problem.

I have gotten this far in my reply but cannot come up with a defense for Lamb. So I will have to give up. Sorry. A funny thing is that Lamb uses “like” when a true pedant would have used “such as” in front of his examples. No matter. That probably says more about me than it does about him.

Bernard Lamb is a geneticist, that’s true. He may also be a polymath – I don’t know that and you don’t know that. However, you are suggesting that because he’s a geneticist ‘it doesn’t prove anything’. Well, it doesn’t disprove anything, either.

As for data to back his claims, one can easily find an article from back in 1998 which shows, in detail, that he has indeed been collecting data and analysing it – unlike some who simply jumped to conclusions from reading a brief quotation.http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j24/under.php

After you have read the Lamb surveys, I suggest that you might wish to review what you’ve said in paragraphs three and onward. I think you will find that your claims do not hold water.

As for “Maybe Lamb has that evidence, and he’s chosen not to present it”, you can see that the material in the published journals proves that he has ‘presented it’ – it’s just that you haven’t bothered to read it yet.

Padraig: I agree with your first point, and I certainly didn’t intend to point out his being a geneticist as an ad hominem attack. What I mean by it is this: if he were talking about genetics, his specialty, and he made a claim that he didn’t bother to back up with evidence, I’d still be fairly willing to trust him on it, because he is an acknowledged expert in genetics, and all I remember about genetics is that Gregor Mendel was a monk. But on language, he is hardly an acknowledged expert, and his work on the subject only further convinces me that he’s not a language expert.

The two articles you cite are entirely about spelling errors (aside from brief, unquantified asides about grammatical errors) in the current crop of undergraduates coming through Lamb’s undergraduate courses, and the only statistical analysis he performs is showing that a significantly lower percentage of his international students spelled certain words wrong than their UK counterparts. These studies in no way undermine my point that he has no data that the standards of English have dropped. All he has shown is that his current (1992 and 1998) students make spelling errors. His statistical analysis had a number of flaws — notably that his final conclusion that his international students are significantly better spellers looks only at “selected” words, without giving the selection criteria. I have absolutely no faith in his conclusion; for all we know, his selection criteria could have been “what subset gives me a statistically significant result?”

I briefly looked over some single-author work he did on genetics back in 1986 ( http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/114/2/611 ), and even just a glance shows why he is an expert in genetics and not in language. Look at the amount of data he presents, the amount of statistical testing, the number of studies he cites that are not his own. Compare that to the Spelling Society article, and I think you’ll see why I was wary of his knowledge of language.

So I have finished reviewing paragraph 3 onward, and I stand by everything I said in it. Lamb’s data is not in the least conclusive regarding his claim that standards of English are dropping, for the reasons I mentioned there. My analogy about the people being healthier is, if anything, generous, because there is substantial evidence that smallpox infections are down. And I stand by my sentence “Maybe Lamb has that evidence, and he’s chosen not to present it”, for the two reasons that he’s not presenting what evidence he has in the interview, and because his evidence is terrible.

‘I maintain that anyone who believes that standards are slipping probably has little or no experience reading unpublished documents written before 1900.’

You’re on solid ground there! Hardly anyone would have read ‘unpublished documents written before 1900’. Where would you find/read them? They’re unpublished! That’s a convoluted way of making your point.

But why pick 1900? When people talk/write about falling standards, they’re considering the last two or three generations, at the most. That’s when education was generally available and to a higher standard for the majority of pupils. In the UK, it was common for people in the 1920-1940 period to leave school at fourteen years. Before that, it was thirteen years or even twelve. A not insignificant part of the schooling focused on penmanship and simple arithmetic.

As for the ‘1700s and 1800s’, I’ve seen that period referred to frequently. Yet, since most people were literally illiterate at that time, how is that relevant? Virtually no one would have possessed a dictionary, neither would they have they received a decent, formal education (unless at ‘public schools’). I think it’s important to compare apples with apples.

The ‘dumbing-down’ of education is a ‘hot topic’ at the moment in the UK, with claims that exam standards have fallen over the last three or four decades. There is some evidence for that, but that could be getting off the point here. The difficulty faced in raising that point is that nearly anything ‘used as evidence’ is rejected (almost out of hand) by the educational establishment as anecdotal, circumstantial and inconclusive. (You can apply that argument to nearly everything in real life!) One problem is that the education establishment (and politicians) has a vested interest in debunking any such claim – it would be evidence of its failure (or at least being a party to that), if it were proven.

Certainly, grammar and spelling is not taught to anything like the same extent, as previously, throughout the schooling years, 5 yo to 18yo. Many students are now required to attend remedial classes to bring them up to standard in the first year at uni – often even at the top unis. I’ve had personal experience of falling standards in the communication abilities of new graduate employees over many years – in a multinational organisation.

One point not often raised about standards relates to the teachers themselves. If a proposition about falling standards can be shown to have reasonable merit, then teachers proceeding through the same education system would be subject to the same ‘dumbing down’ effect – the quality of teachers, in general, would diminish, ceteris paribus.

If some of the basic foundations of the language are not being taught, and even when they are it’s to a lower standard, then there is an almost-certain decline being built into the outcomes.

Those less-inclined to enforce high standards will likely oversee an ongoing decline, perhaps even beyond repair. The situation as it was in the ‘1700s and 1800s’ may well return.

@September 17, 2010 at 11:08 am
Gabe
I agree with your response that “his claim that standards of English are dropping” are not conclusive.

I think that he could justify that the standards of spelling, and maybe grammar in some cases, ‘indicate’ a fall, within the parameters of his studies. Perhaps he was being too broad in his use of the expression ‘standards of English’.

If the spelling (and grammar) was of a lower standard, it may well be that the quality of English expression was also lower – that is a reasonable hypothesis to start with, I think.

Students are not receiving grammar lessons (to any significant degree, perhaps with the exception of certain independent schools) and they are no longer producing anywhere near the number of essays they used to for general term/semester work and in exams – there’re many more short-answer and multiple choice questions set. There are other factors to consider as well.

It’s reasonable to argue, or at least suggest, (but not on a scientific basis) that the ‘quality’ of English (expression, etc) would likely decline over time in that circumstance, unless there were other factors to offset that.

It might be an interesting exercise for you and others to contact Lamb directly, on an academic basis, and ask to see his ‘evidence’. It ‘might’ be enlightning. We’d all be interested.

And Chaucer and Shakespeare’s writing was very clear and expressive, and their Englishes had very little in the way of standard spelling or grammar. You’ll probably say that’s not relevant, but I think it’s very relevant – it demonstrates that the lack standardized language is not correlated with a lack of expressiveness.

Just to get one thing straight, I am not in the camp of the QES or with others, like Fiske. I am simply an individual (not a linguist, lexicographer, English specialist, etc) who is grappling with this issue – that’s probably clear! I’ve been in the Marketing, Shipping and Contracting of bulk-shipped commodities for thirty years.

I take your point that “It’s possible to write something that’s expressive and clear using nonstandard spelling and grammar”. Yes, it’s ‘possible’, but to what level of probability? Highly probable for the majority?

“Expressive and clear”? Both? Wouldn’t it be more likely (I’m not saying ‘certain’) to be clear (unambiguous) if it were in ‘standard’ (rather than ‘nonstandard’ spelling and grammar?

I’m not being argumentative (honestly!), but your views are expressed in standard spelling and grammar – to a very high standard. Probably all the people commenting here would be similarly capable.

What I have seen online recently is that many of those arguing that strict adherence to what was regarded as a high standard of English expression may not be so vital, actually have that capability (‘in spades’). They have that capability themselves, yet argue that it may not be necessary for others? That sounds incongruous.

From my own experience, and that’s not scientifically-based I know, I have been involved in developing new graduates through an organisation over twenty years. I can see that, in the main, the standard of written English has been declining, in part (I believe) because they have not been receiving any significant, formal training in grammar (including punctuation) and writing (mainly of reports).

Very recently, it was the case that my employer’s CEO (who took a degree in English at Cambridge), actually spent time coaching certain people on the high flyers graduate scheme in report writing because their standard was generally inadequate.

As for Chaucer and Shakespeare, you can argue that their writing was clear and expressive, if one works at understanding it. I don’t think that the majority of students (not just those specialising in English Lit) would necessarily find Shakespeare very clear, without adequate teaching support and reference to the plethora of explanatory publications which have become available in more recent decades – especially if they had not seen a live stage performance, or on film or TV.

I didn’t mean ‘expression’ in the sense of use in literary works, but that it be a clear, unambiguous and accurate communication – particularly in a business world.

As for spelling, apart from the differences between (British) English and American English, I think it’s preferable to use the most common spelling of words (rather than allowing too many ‘variations’). Some ‘spellings’ are clearly in error – ‘seperate’ instead of ‘separate’ – whilst others may be seen in dictionaries, but are in less common use. I definitely stand in the camp of the importance of correct spelling, otherwise how can judge whether a person really knows the correct usage of the word being employed – I’m excluding ‘typos’ here, as I make plenty of those!

I am concerned, but not from a pedantic stance (as others clearly are), that if something of a solid (a core) framework is not maintained from early teaching, then, for many, their capabilities in English writing in all forms may be diminished.

I think it’s indisputable that you and most others here have a significantly higher capability of English expression than so many students (not specialising in English-related studies) passing through unis today. In the UK, it was once a requirement that potential uni entrants passed at A-Level in certain subjects like “General Studies’ or “Use of English”, if they did science subjects, for example. It was imperative that they achieved a minimum standard of English capability.

Padraig
I write in standard English because that’s how I was taught. I’m not saying that standard written English is not necessary. I’m saying that standard written English is not necessary for clarity. Spelling errors and nonstandard grammar are rarely unclear. There’s nothing unclear about double negatives for instance.

Communicating yourself well is writing is an important skill, but that’s not the same as standard written English. Standard written English might be necessary for other reasons – for instance, if you spell words wrong people might not hire you, etc.

Yes, we have trouble understanding Shakespeare now, but that’s not my point. My point is that Shakespeare’s contemporaries presumably didn’t have trouble understanding his writing, even tho there was no such thing as standard English at the time (as far as I know).

As for everything else you wrote, it seems reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.

I would argue, though, with the comment, “I’m willing to bet that Lamb isn’t too concerned about his lack of evidence”. You’ve convinced yourself that that’s the case, yet you have no evidence (of his lack of evidence) yourself. Much of the early criticism about Lamb seemed to be based on the recent article, which didn’t quote any data (it wasn’t ‘his’ article after all) – there was an assumption (not very scientific) that he hadn’t any…’perhaps it was just anecdotal’, ‘perhaps the guy’s making it up’.

As I said above, Lamb did provide data in three published articles – mainly relating to spelling. I’m sure that no one here (including me) has read them thoroughly. Neither have they asked Lamb to see all the data he has gathered. He is a well-known scientist, and would be well aware that he could be questioned on the validity of the data and the conclusions he reached.

He published his first data in 1992 (then later, in 1998 and 2007 – perhaps there’s more to come), so he’s not just jumping on a bandwagon – he clearly planned to determine whether there was/would be any decline/improvement in the English component of his students’ work.

From what others have said here, there’s no test available (perfect or otherwise) to determine ‘standards or expression of English’. It is possible, though, to examine spelling and grammar (punctuation, etc) content, and grade that (without nitpicking on esoteric points).

Without any research like this (and preferably more widespread, including other subject majors, etc), we’d never know at all whether ‘standards’ could be changing.

We shouldn’t assume that standards are being maintained, are declining or improving. There’s a lot of anecdotal ‘evidence’ about which should be addressed – not just assumed to be correct or incorrect.

Whenever statements about ‘declines’ appear in the media and online, there are certainly people who will accept them (as you rightly argue), but the statements shouldn’t be ignored either – ‘maybe they’re related to nostalgia’, etc.

It’s one thing to ask for research data and question it; it’s another to dismiss a claim out of hand.

I would be very surprised if there isn’t a person here who hasn’t felt they’ve some evidence themselves (OK, not scientific!) of declines; in their places of study, in the media (online, print and TV), in public places, in their workplaces. That may not be all due to education, of course; there have certainly been cutbacks in copyediting in recent times.

I am a little disturbed by the last section you write, though. “Unless the rest of us find a way to cut through the public’s predispositions, he’s already won.”

Aren’t you begging the question? Maybe he is correct. Maybe not. You seem to have prejudged the situation without any evidence yourself!

It surely shouldn’t be assumed that he is simply a figure trying to cause a mischief. Wouldn’t it be better if there are problems of any kind out there, they are publicised and considered, and action, where necessary and possible, is taken to correct the problems?

Though I agree with much of what you have written, I am going to find fault just because I think it might be fun.

The question of whether standards have slipped in English are not a well defined scientific issue. And that is what is so troubling about Lamb’s approach. He has produced “data,” but he has had his own QES publish all his “studies” which is like the people pushing vitamins and protein powders pointing to the research they have conducted to prove the efficacy of their garbage. Peer review matters, and he knows this, so why is he not publishing in a journal with a more critical eye? My problem with Lamb is that he is acting as if he has real scientific data to back up what is a personal hunch and little more.

The problem with arguing that we have all seen standards decline is that we are all moving standards. As each of us has gained better dexterity with standard written English over the years, each of us has become better able to see the “errors” of others. That change in our own personal abilities could easily account for the possible decline we seem to be observing in others.

I actually agree with Lamb and with you that we do need to teach standard written English according to a fairly consistent model. Being excessively rigid in this approach, however, can easily lead to unsupportable claims about the language, which is what Lamb makes. Quite often those who adhere too rigidly to a single model of English are motivated by not just smugness but also class and racial prejudices. I am not sure Lamb is guilty of such prejudices, but his scientific training leaves him few excuses for his sloppy thinking.

I went into teaching in 2002.. I worked in the NYC public schools. I was shocked to learn of balance-literacy and whole-language. I later learned that some of our finest independent schools are perpetrating thiis fraud. Thank God that I learned grammar, spelling, phonics andf vocabulary in public and Lutheran schools. Lowering standards is dangerous. we are seeing the reults in daily life. Teaches and parents, I exhort you: Charity begins at home. Reverse this dangerous fraud.

‘In August 2008, The New York Times reported that 10 New York City public schools were changing their curriculum from Balanced Literacy programs to the Core Knowledge system. It noted, “The Core Knowledge curriculum is heavily focused on content, vocabulary skills and nonfiction books.” It is also focused heavily on phonics. This move is a clear shift away from the writing workshop and whole language method of immersion in interesting, exciting books. With 10 schools participating in the pilot program, the city will have a chance to see which approach is more effective.’

This is a link to the Cambridge Assessment website where there is a report (pdf format) on ‘Exploring non-standard English amongst teenagers’, which was published this year.http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/183955_Rearch_Matters_9_2010.pdf
(by Dr Beth Black)
They are a respected organisation, which carries out research on education matters in the UK.
I won’t comment on the data, validity of the research or the conclusions. I do recommend that the commmenters read the report and give their views. It has been mentioned here that there’s little research on the use of the English language – this org does so.
They carried out a similar study in 2005, but I didn’t see it on their website – perhaps someone can track it down and provide a link.

I’m unsure what they mean precisely by ‘accuracy and quality in written composition’. I’m not disputing their findings and conclusions – I’ll leave that to others who are better qualified and/or experienced.

I would be concerned, though, about the quality of students’ degree, higher-degree/doctoral presentations, if they were ill-equipped in the skills these researchers have been examining. If there’s little-to-no teaching of key components of the written language, how will the students ever acquire them? By their own inquisitiveness and motivation? Admittedly anecdotal evidence from employers these days suggests that these graduates haven’t acquired the necessary skills, so end up being sent on remedial courses.

The only evidence I can give of shifting standards in my limited experience was that when I was in high school, we would lose up to 20% on any essay due to grammar and syntax (I’m a product of the French-Canadian system) and now that I am a student-teacher, we are instructed to give full marks if we think we can somehow understand what the student meant to say.

Thanks, Mathieu. A body of evidence is needed which clearly demonstrates the extent of the alleged problem – whether it is serious or minor.

When I was in secondary and tertiary levels, teachers and lecturers made it quite clear that if the presented work was sufficiently badly-written or illegible, they would pass it back without marking – they wouldn’t waste their time trying to ‘decypher’ it.

Another approach at marking was implemented by the physics master, who would award marks for points mentioned which were relevant and important to an ‘experiment’. But he would deduct marks for things he deemed were essential. On individual pieces of work, you could receive more than the nominal ‘full marks’ or even a theoretical negative mark.